[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d5902382-70f4-be07-99f6-80d17cdfdcaa@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2022 11:17:46 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1.1 1/2] x86/sev: Use per-CPU PSC structure in prep for
unaccepted memory support
On 8/3/22 11:11, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> + /*
> + * Use the MSR protocol when either:
> + * - executing in an NMI to avoid any possibility of a deadlock
> + * - per-CPU GHCBs are not yet registered, since __vmgexit_psc()
> + * uses the per-CPU GHCB.
> + */
> + if (in_nmi() || !ghcb_percpu_ready)
> + return early_set_pages_state(__pa(vaddr), npages, op);
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&psc_desc_lock, flags);
Would it be simpler to just do a spin_trylock_irqsave()? You fall back
to early_set_pages_state() whenever you can't acquire the lock.
That avoids even having to know what the situations are where you
_might_ recurse. If it recurses, the trylock will just naturally fail.
You simply can't have bugs where the "(in_nmi() || !ghcb_percpu_ready)"
conditional was wrong.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists